STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG: TYSON BATES and REGINA BATES; Pluintitts, COMPLAINT (Gury Trial Demanded) (CHARLOTTE: MECKLENBURG HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISS‘ON, DANIEL MORRILL, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Consulting Director ofthe Chaotte- Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Commission, HAROLD LEONARD NORMAN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Chairman ofthe Projects Committee, and JACK THOMSON, Ind vidvally and in his Official city as Director ofthe Charlotte Mecklenburg Historie Landmarks Commission, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NOW COMES Phintffs, by and through undersigned Counsel, pursuant to North Carotina General State (hereinafter "N.C.G.S.") §§1614-400.1-400.14 and 414-4, and Rules 7 and 8 of the North Carolim Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby alleging and complaining of all Defendants, jointly and severally a follows: PARTIES |, Plaintiffs TYSON BATES and REGINA BATES (hereinafter referred to as “The Bates “Plain, are ctizers und residents of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, 2. Defendant CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION (bereisafter “HLC" oF "Defendant 1”), isa local agency charged primarily ‘with designating historis landmarks and preserving same. 3. Upon information and 2elief, Defendant DR, DANIEL MORRILL (hereinafter “Morrill” ‘or “Defendant 2°), is 2 citizen and resident of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; who previously served asthe Consulting Direetor of the HLC. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendant HAROLD LEONARD NORMAN (hereinafter “Norman” or Deferdont 3”), is a resident and citizen of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; who previousy served as Chairman of the Projets Committee. Page 1022Upon information and selief, Defendant JACK THOMSON (hereinafter “Thomson” or “Defendant 3"), is a resident and citizen of Mecklenburg, County, North Carolina; who currently serves the Ditetor of the HILC. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ‘This Court has jusisdicion over the subject matter of this Complaint and over each of the Defendants Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to N.CGS. §1-75.4 ‘Venue is proper pursuan! to NCGS. §1-82 BACKGROUND, ‘The HLC was created in 1973 by a joint venture of Charlotte City Council and The Mecklenburg County Commission. With the authority of the HLC originating in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and detailed within N.CG.S. §160A-400.1 through 400.14, the HIC’s responsibilities range from the identification of potential landmarks fo be designated as historic and stabilizing already existing historic landmarks, to providing educational opportunities for the ‘community ait relates othe significance of landmarks. In 2007, Defendant Morill in his official capacity as Consulting Director of the HILC, submitted a proposal / Mandatory Referral Repor, to the Mecklenburg County Planning Commission, requesting transfer of a portion of the Waymer Center; specifically, ‘The ‘Toaence-Lytle School, The property, located at 302 Holbrooks Road, Huntersville, North Carolina 28078 (hereinafler “Torrence-Lytle”), was to be provided to the HLC for protections. ‘Defendant Mozil's preposal communicsted plans to stabilize and preserve the property in accordance with the Town of Huntersvlle's land use and development goals. At the time of submission, these goalsincluded “preserving some ofthe town’s rural heritage.” “To justify the project, the Mandatory Referral Report No 07-25, determined that “the HLC determined the property known us the Torrence-Lytle Schoo! does possess special sigaificance in terms of Cherlotte-Mecklenburg,” The Commission basec its judgment on the following facts regarding the Torrence-Lytle Schoo! (®) represents the fist opportunity Aftican-Ameriean residents of North Mecklenburg County had, to attend public high school inthe region where they lived; (b) is one of the oldest remaining Alrican-American school buildings in Mecklenburg County, and is importa in understanding the broad pattern ofthe county's history; Page 2 of 2220, 24 (6) is representative of movement in the 1930's to bring high school education to rural Blacks in Mecklenburg County; and, (€) is significant as an important example of early 20th-century school building architecture ‘As a result ofthe reportand dealings with The Huntersville Town Board, Torrence-Lytle was designated a local Histoie Landmark, and judged eligible for listing inthe National Register of Historic Places, On November 13, 2007, the Charlotte Mecklenburg Planning Commission voted 7-0, in {vor of transferring the Property tothe HLC. For neatly two (2) years after the vote was taken and transfer approved, the HLC failed take the necessary steps to secure transfer of the property 11 wasn’t until on or about September 24, 2009, thatthe Torrence-Lytle School was finally ‘wansfered from Mecklenburg County to the HLC, via Special Warranty Deed. Pursuant to Seetion IV of the HLC Policy Manual, Defendant HILC holds regular meetings fn the second Monday of each month; except duting the month of July, to discuss and go pout the business of the Commission Plaintiffs Tyson andl Rogina Bates, ae an African American couple, married for 15 years, the parents of four (4) school-aged children interested, and fully qualified to purchase and preserve the Torrence tle property. Both are graduates of HBCU Johnson C. Smith located in Charlotte, NC. Tysor Bates was a professor of Black Studies and Culture at UNCC, and subscquently taught at Providence High School. Regina Bates isa former elementary schoo! teacher ftom CMS Morehead Elementary, now Governors Village. As former educators who saw a gap in the schoo system, they decided to extend leaming through opportunities that Black children are rarely forded in the classroom. Suecessful Start Leaning Center is a before and after sehool program founded by Plaintiffs in 2004, with camp each summer. The Center is currently loczted in Mecklenburg County, at 8011 Old Statesville Road, and has serviced over two thousand (2000) underprivileged and working class families, since inception. Students are sducated on recognizing thie individual gifts to enable them to have the confidence to contr bute to society in a productive and meaningful manner. Every year since 2004, the Center has taken summer campers on a week-long tip to neighboring sates, ‘as well asthe Bahamas, Puerto Rico, and St, Thomas, based on research and collective work ddone by the students thoughout the year. When The Torrence-Lyle School was aequited, Defendant HILC hnsd no strategy nor plan in place regarding stabilization of the property. A vote was taken by commission members during the November 2009 meeting, whereby, twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) was approved to cover the cost of hiring a consultant for development of a strategy to stabilize the Propesty. Page 302222, After the November 2009 meeting, a series of conversations took place, during subsequent ‘meetings, regarding tailization of the Property as follows; (2) Approximately five (5) months later, during the April 2010 meeting, a subsequent and ‘duplicative vote was tnben by the Commission, to again commit the HLLC to stabilizing the Torrence-Lyte School. (6) It wasn’t until the Cetober 2010 meeting, approximately six (6) months later, that HLC Projects Manager Bryan Turner, advised commission members of the repairs required to stabilize the Property. at the time, it was estimated that the total cost of repairs was six hundred «wenty-seven thousand one hundred dollars ($627,100.00). In addition, Mr. Turner advised the Commissior, that a plan on moving forward with said repairs would be discussed during the next meeting, (6) The Torrence-Lytle School was not discussed by Mr. Turner or any commission members, at the November 2010 meting, a initially intended or planned, (@) During the December 2010 meeting, Mr, Turner tabled all discussions on the Torrence- Lytle School / Property. 23, Even though HILC hited and paid @ consultant to develop a stratexy of stabilization for ‘Torrenee-Lytle, the commission failed to begin any repairs on the property. 24, Despite being advised of said repairs and associated costs to stabilize the Torrenee-Lytle School, five (5) months later during the February and March 2011 commission moctings respectively, the HLC decided it should instead, meot with leaders from the Town of Huntersville to discuss preservation strategies to stabilize the property. 25. After meeting with the Town of Huntersville, Defendant Morsill advised commission members atthe April 2C11 meeting that while the Town i interested in stabilizing Torrence- Lytle it Jacks the funds to assist due to investments in other projects, Asan alternative, the Town recommends that HLC perform “minimum stabilization.” 26. At the May 2011 mecting, despite statutory obligations to do so, the HLC decided to bandon all efforts 0 stabilize the historie Affean American Tortence-Lytle School, and instead sought to sell the property. 27. None of the required repairs recommended in the consultant's detailed October 2010 report, ‘were made tothe Property. 28, From the time Torrence-Lytle was transferred to the HILC, to the date of filing tis aetion, the ILC has filed to intia-e any stabilization efforts tothe property 29, Due to the HLC's failure to stabilize the property, the condition of Torrence-Lytle has continued 10 deteriomie significantly, and negatively impacts the surounding Aftican Page of 2230, 31 2 3 34 35, 36 37, 38, 39. 40. 4 American community, which is currently under considerable and successful efforts of gentrification, Upon information and belief, Defendants’ Morrill and the HC, promoted the deterioration of the Torence-Lytle School, by failing to comply with the general statutes in place to protect historical landmark designations, and failing o follow through with decisions made boy the Commission, pursuant to Commission policies. Upon information and telief, There have been several interested and potential buyers, over the last nine (9) years, who have either (a) not met the qualifications to purchase the Property, or (b) lost interest entirely. Priot 0 the transfer of the property to the HILC, various community members and organizations used Torrence-Lytle School for athletic events, eivie meetings, storage, and other community activites. Local communities with an interest in preserving the Property, have contacted Defendant THILC multiple times over the years and on a consistent basis, regarding the Property. The Torrence-Lytle School community, which includes graduates from the historical cit, has repeatedly expressed concer over (1) the lack of repairs to the property, (2) the lack of preservation of the property, and (3) the damage the condition of the property causes the formerly all -Black community. In October 2011 members of the Torrence-Lytle community, attended the HLC's monthly meeting, and expressed deep concer for the condition of the School, and negative impact the deteriorating propery was causing to their community, and surounding property values. ‘Torrance Lytle became an eye Sore having multiple leaks, broken windows, and a completely unstable root. Inthe November 2011 meeting, the HILC again decided to make repairs to the Torrenee-Lytle property. According to the mesting minutes, the HLC unanimously voted to designate “up to $2500" to (1) “seal exposed shingle boards using roof mastic,” 2) “repair leak in valley at rising wall of right wing," and 3) “cover broken and exposed windows using OSB board.” ‘Upon information and kelie, the above-mentioned repairs were coordinated by commission ‘members in December 2011 Instead of stabilizing ‘he property, as proposed to the Planning Commission in 2007, Defendant Mori in tis offcial and individual capacity, worked to identify any bidder willing to take the propery off the Commissions hands. Upon information and belief, Defendant Morrill and the HLC entertained purchase of the property by several interested buyers, throughout 2012. In May 2012, the HLC approved the decision to accept Requests for Proposals ftom Prospective Buyers Page $0f2242, When socking potential huyers, tle to no emphasis was expressed to potential buyers, about the high level of signifisance of the historical Affican American School to the surrounding ‘community, nor the imsortance of preserving the property. Instead, the HLC decided to ‘approve Requests for Proposals from Prospective Buyers, even if they sought to demolish the property, so Tong as: (@) the buyer provide a timetable within which all improvements to the property would be completed; () thatthe HLC would -weoup all expenses incurred during ownership of the property; () that all preparatory costs, including demolition of any buildings, be borne bythe buyer; (@) thatthe history ofthe Torrence-Lytle School be ealebrated in an appropriate manner, such as signage, exhibits, or media presentations, et; and (6) that preference be given to prospective buyers willing to preserve all or some part ofthe histori buildings of the property. 43, While seeking prospective buyers, Dr. Momill and the HILC, allowed the Torrence-Lytle School to continue to st ignored and in extreme disrepair, never initiating the necessary attention required underNC law, for basic stabilization efforts 44, Six (6) months late, daring the November 2012 meeting, the HLC went into Executive Session to determine a prie in which fo sell the Property 45. In March 2013, the HLC briefly entertained stabilization of the Torrence-Lytle Schoo! again, upon the realization that fees associated with stabilization efforts could be funded by submitting aplication (the Federal government. 46, In April 2013, approximately four (4) years after formerly receiving the Property, HLC again approved a budget, of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), o ‘clean up’ the Property 47. Upon information and belief, no clean up efforts were ever performed. 48, In 2015, Defendant Merl, in his individual and offic ‘members of the Torrenes-Lytle School community capacity, attended a meeting with 49, Local community organizations attended the meeting, and expressed grave concems regarding the condition ofthe buildings, the lack of repaits, failure by the HILC to maintain for preserve the property as required, the deterioration the property overall, and the plan or lack thereof, for the Property moving forward, 50. In response, Defendant Morrill advised mecting attendees that considerations were being made to demolish portions, and sel other portions ofthe school Page 6 0f2251 22 33 si 55, 36, 37. 38 59, 60, 61 Defendant Morill offered no information to the community regarding repairs, stabilization fr restoration of the school, despite having expended close to twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00) of Commission funds in 2009, to have a consultant address the critical need for stabilization of the Property. Since the HILC failed to make any productive changes or repairs tothe property, by 2015, the interior condition of the Torence-Lytle School was observed and considered to be dangerous. Parts of the building had fallen off, the instability of the roof worsened, the oundation was suffering, and floor, walls and the chimney, were all in a state of serious disrepair. In response to repeated inquiry to HILC concerning all necessary repairs, and specifically the ‘oof, the community was informed thatthe roof had not been repaired thus far, due t0 the ‘expense involved in the repair, In April 2015, the HLC Projects Committee presented additional ‘options’ concerning ‘Torrence-Lytle and made the following recommendations: (@) stabilize «portion of Torrence-Lytle; and, (8) demolish the remaining three (3) buildings. ‘The total cost of demolition was estimated to be approximately seven hundred fifty-eight ‘thousand dollars ($758,000.00), ‘The following month, in May 2015, HLC voted to remove asbestos from the Property Conversations regarding specifies on removal, were tabled for discussion at later time, In the months that followed, the HLC continuously voted to expend funds for cleanup of ‘Torrence-Lytle, but cleanup never actually occutred, Torrence-Lytle deteriomted rapidly. The most obvious damage included significant roof of property designated as a historical landmark, In the weeks that followed, The Bates provided Defendants’ with their purchase plan. ‘After reviewing the proposed plan, Defendants’ advised The Bates of addtional ‘requirements necessary for them to move forward, and be considered for ownership. ‘When The Bates questioned the need for additional information, Defendant Morrill expressly told The Bates of his concern that ownership for them was a “laudatory goal,” and they ‘would need to prove they had the financial capacity to proceed During the January 2C16 meeting, Defendant Morrill reported that previously approved clean-up for Tortence-Lytle, would be further delayed, in hopes of securing a partnership ‘with the Town of Huntersville to bear some of the costs of stabilization. Page 8 of 2295, 16. n. 8 m, 0, 81 2. 83. m4, Soon after, the FILC offered to sell Torrence-Lyte to the Town of Huntersville for one dollar ($1.00). The Town of Huntersville declined the offer, citing the need for Defendants’ to perform the necessary repairs to stabilize the Property (On or about February 12, 2016, The Bates contscted Defendant Morrill, and informed him they planned to move forward withthe purchase of Torrance-Lytle, and requested an Offer to Purchase from the FILC, on or by the March commission meeting, ‘The Bates attended the commission mesting on March 4, 2016, and presented their Intent to Purchase, During the mesting, Defendant Morrill advised The Bates of next steps toward purchase to include: (1) the Commissions’ review ofthe Purchase Proposal, and (2) a vote to recommend review of the Purchase Proposal by the County Facilities and Assets Management Department. Defendant Morill specifically advised The Bates that the Commission could vote to reject thei offer, and “move ahead with the first phase of the restoration of the propery.” The aforementioned press introduced by Defendants’, was the beginning of long and entirely discriminatory process to purchase Torrence-Lytle, created specifically for The ‘Bates, and was unlike tht of any other potential buyers. ‘On of about March 28, 2016, Defendant Morrill requested the Bates provide personal financial statements to include their “capacity to undertake the project and timetable of restoration.” On or about March 30, 2016, the Bates emailed Defendant Morill regarding an appraisal but received no response, In the meantime, Defendants reported to the Charlotte Observer, that efforts were underway to stabilize the Property, and the Commission is looking for a “viable partner fo purchase and implement adaptive rewse." Defendants’ failed to mention The Bates active interest in the ‘property, and their desire to restore it to its original use and purpose, ‘The Bates attended the commission meeting on April 11, 2016, and leamed that Defendants? ‘were “moving forward with the approved environmental cleanup ofall buildings owned by the HL and with stabilizing the original schoo! building.” ‘The commission advised that Defendants’ attomey determined, that the aforementioned agreement “should be « contract,” and the commission unanimously voted to approve the contract with The Bates withthe following stipulation: (@) Due diligence was 0 last no longer th signing; and, ‘one hundred twenty (120) days of all parties (©) the closing was to occur within sixty (60) days, ofall partes signing, ‘Once signed, the agreement would be reviewed by the Commission Attomey, and the price for purchase would he stat the cost Defendants’ had incurred to date Page 9 of 2285. On April 26, 2016, Th: Bates emailed Defendant Morill inquiring about the necessary contract. In response, Defendant Morill requested The Bates cal him to discuss, 86, When The Bates retuméd the call, Defendant Mori refused to make himself available for any discussion surround ng purchase. 87. Consistent with the discriminatory requirements placed on The Butes thus fir, Defendants? tuditionally required ‘The Bates t provide a secondary Letter of Intent, to outline stipulations ereated by Defendants” to include: (@) architectural plans and a 3D model of intended plans, (©) CPA prepared financials; and, () additional personal fnancial statements for each of them, ‘88, Defendants’ intentionally placed unnecessary administrative obstacles before ‘The Bates surrounding purchase, aid completely ignored its own policies and procedures forthe sae of historically designated properties. 89, Defendants’ engaged ina blatantly disriminatory purchasing process with The Bates, that is not only unfair and deceptive, but unjust. 90, During the May 2016 and June 2016 HLC meeting, Defendant Morrill reported (0 the (Commission, that The Bates were “sending in an Offer to Purchase.” 91, At the August 2016 cortmission meeting, Defendant Moril reported to the Commission that The Bates failed to send inthe additionally requested Offer to Purchase, andthe commission ‘has another potential buyer. The Bates had in fact submitted to the discriminatory request, and submitted another Letter of Intent 92, Subsequently, the ‘new buyer” identified by HILC, was not required to submit to any of the equitements imposed ypon The Bates for additional documentation, 98, Defendants’ were in agieement to sell Torrence-Lytle to The Bates for the purchase price of ‘one hundred forty-seven thousand, seven hundred forty-nine thousand dollars (S147,749.00), 0 long as they were in agreement to submit to several additional steps for ownership. 94, In order to move to the next slep of receiving an actual Purchase Agreement from the Commission, The Bates were required to: (@) submit several more financial and other documents to the Commission; () provide a payment of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) as an initial deposit; and, (©) provide an additional payment of four thousand dollar ($4,000.00) as a deposit, to be placed in trust until losing. Page 10 of 2295, In an unprecedented display of further disrespect and discrimination wo The Bates, Defendants included the Letter of Intent and all required terms, and attached it to the meetings minutes for puslie review and access. 96, By December 2016, The Bates had submitted all requested documents, awful and unlawful, whieh were required by Defendants" 97. The Bates were advised by the Commission, that ther offer would be considered during the January 2017 meting, Inthe interim, Defendants’ requested even more documentation to include: (@) documents to explain future programing intentions at Torrence-Lytle; and, (anticipated attendance ofthe Bates" proposed school atthe Torrenee-Lytle location. ‘98. All requested informaticn was submitted in a timely manner, 99. The Bates received no esponse regarding the status of their Offer to Purchase, in Janury 2017. 100.1n February 2017, the Commission finally engaged in the environmental clean up of the Property, and initiated the removal of asbestos, Unfortunately, the removal was performed with no regard for the safety of the surrounding Affian American community, and in fact exposed the entire area to high doses of asbestos, leaving them subject to subsequent cancer iggnosis, 101.Specifially, Defendant’ authorized acbestos removal without the logally required shield / ‘covers aver the building, to limit the spread of asbestos throughout the community. 102.UJpon information and belief, the entirety ofthe A‘fican American community, was exposed to the harmful and cancerous effets of asbestos. 103.1n May 2017, Defendanis’ advised The Bates of their decision to arbitrarily inerease the purchase price for Torrence-Lytle, to four hundred twenty-four thousand dollars ($424,000.00), claiming it was due to the expense incurred by Defendants for the asbestos removal 104.1n September 2017, The Bates were informed that their loan officer retired, and they immediately began the process of identifying another lender. 105.Needling sdlitonal time for the new lender to close, The Bates advised Defendants’ of the lenders retirement, and quested a ninety (90) day extension to clase, Defendants’ refused to agree to any extension. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Mark Miller, emailed the Bates providing, “you don’t have enough meat on the bones,” and later followed up that sentiment ‘during a phone callin which he stated the Bates “did not have enough skin in the game.” 106:In the interim, The Bates were presented with additional requirements to be provided in ‘order to move forward withthe purchase, to include: Page of22(@) architectural plans; () personal tx returns; (6) profit and loss statement provided by a licensed CPA; and, (@) the names and contact information for anyone involved in the purchase ofthe property to include investors. 107.All of the requested information had already provided to the Commission, in response t0 previous requests 108.0n October 11, 2017, The Bates contract to purchase was terminated by Defendants’, ‘without cause. 109.The Bates met and exceeded all of the additional requirements placed upon them to be considered as buyers of Torrence-Lytle. 110.At no time were The Bates provided with an explanation as to why the request for additional time to close, was dene. 111.Defendants* had no other interested buyers in the property atthe time they terminated the ‘contract with The Bates. 112.Aer terminating The Bates contract, Defendants’ engaged the services of areal estate agent and listed the property fora six (6) month period. 113.ta February 2018, Defendants’ sent letter to local community organization, advising them that: (a) removal of asbestos was completed; (b) Torrence-Lye Schoo! was to be listed by a real estate agent hired by the Commission, fora period of six (6) months; and, (6) that there were no inerested buyers in the property, atthe time. 114.In April 2018, Defendants’ entered into a contract for purchase with Brock Ventures, 10 purchase Torrence-Lytle for the purchase price of three hundred fifty-thousand dollars ($350,000.00, signticenty less than that which was offered to The Bates. Said contract terminated by September 2018, as the buyer was no longer interested. 115.The Commission continued to explore options ranging from demolition, to engaging. a consultant to perform a study on potential uses. 116.In November 2018, The Bates renewed their interest in purchasing the Property and ‘contacted Defendants" again. Page I20f 22117.In January 2019, The Bates submitted yet another proposal to Defendants’ for purchase of ‘Torrence-Lytle Schoo. 118.In February 2019, The Bates were advised of the pending retirement of Defendant Mori, ‘and told to communicate with Len Norman, as he was fo be the new contact moving forward 119.Shortly thereafter, Mr, Norman sent alist of questions to The Bates, which included much of the same which had bees previously supplied by The Bates. 120.Uipon responding to the answers, The Bates received from Mr, Norman, @ term sheet for Torrence-Lytle School with a purchase price of four hundred nine thousand, two lnndred ninely-six dollars and twenty-six cents ($409,296.26) 121.0 of about May 2, 2019, the Parties met and discussed the term sheet and the requirement that The Bates would need to provide an additional five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) earnest money deposit 122,0n or about May 26, 2019, The Bates paid an additional five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), ‘andthe contract to purchase was reviewed and fully executed by Defendants” 123.0n or about June 9, 2019, The Bates signed the contact. 124.Shorlly after the Bates signed the contrat, a local community organization spoke with Mr ‘Norman about the option for them fo purchase Torrence-Lytle for one dollars (S1,00), should “The Bates” contract fall through, Mr, Norman advised organization members tht this would be done. 125.Defendants" again comtcted The Dates and sequested additional monies, When The Bates ‘nquited asta Why, no explanation was provide. 126.In September 2019, Defendants’ abruptly and without explanation, terminated The Bates ‘contract for purchase. 127-None of the earnest mosey provided to Defendants’ by The Bates, was retumed, 128;The Bates continued tying to communicate with Defendants’, but no response was ever received. 129-Torrance-Lytle School continued to deteriorate, ancl no repairs or efforts to preserve the property were made by Defendants’, 1o.In October 2019, a local community organization again contacted Defendants’ and spoke ‘with Defendant Thomsen regarding purchasing the property for ane dalla (1.00) 131 The community representatives explained to Defendant Thomson, that there was discussion ‘and en agreement with Vr, Norman, to purchase the property at that price should The Bates’ contract fll through, Page 13 0f 22132,Defendant ‘Thomson responded by requesting from the onganization, written documentation ‘of the specific canversition with Mr, Norman, detailing Defendant’ interest in selling the property to them for onedollar ($1.00). 133,Upon information and belief, no response was ever provided by Defendants’, and the ‘community onganization as never been seriously considered by Defendants’, to purchase the Proper, 134.During the December 2019 commission meeting, it was reported that a new buyer began expressing intrest in pachasing Torrance-Lyte School, Jolly Dae. 135 January 2020, at the monthly HLC meeting, the local community organization was ‘advised that Jolly Dale was “under contract” as a potential buyer of Torrance-Lytle School, Defendants futher provided that Ms. Dale's interest in Torrence-Lytle School was that of converting the location condominiums 136Ms. Dale was quickly under contmet to purchase Torunce-Lytle School for purchase price ‘of two hundred eighty-ive thousand dollars ($285,000.00), two hundred thousand dollars $200,000.00) less, than the most recent offer to The Bates. 137.Unlike The Bates, no specific plans were required of Ms. Dale by Defendants’, regatding intended use for the propery, or plans to honor the historical designation and deep historical significance tothe Aftiean Ameriean community 138Ms, Dale was not requied to submit any plans detailing what would happen tothe Property under her development, nor was she required to submit personal financial documents 139.0n or about January 23,2020, Ms, Dale attended @ meeting hosted by local members of the community, and revealed {0 the members, that she was excited about the Torrence-Lytle School property, and appreciative of her friend who sat to the Commission, who made her aware of the property. She provided that she was unsure of how she would use the property, ‘out it was unlikely to be condas as they were “proving difficult due to the dilapidated condition and rezoning issues, ofthe property” 140.Upon information and belief, Defendants’ have no interest in restoring, stabilizing or preserving the Property 41.Defendanis’ have no interest in respecting the Affican American history the school represents, and has no regard for the historical significance of the Property fo the African ‘American community. 142.1n February 2020, The Bates contacted Defendants’ via email, to inguire about the status of the Property, as well as 0 express thei continued interest in purchasing. the property. 143.Defendans’ filed to respond to The Bates emails or phone calls 144.0n or about March 9. 2020, Plaintiffs” atended Defendants’ monthly meeting. Several ‘questions were posed to Defendants’ by The Bates, as well as a local community board in Page 4 of 22atendanee. Not only di the commission institute a “new rule,” for the meeting limiting inquiry and statements ty the public to no more than three (3) minutes each, The Bates were instructed to put their concerns in writing and speak with Defendants’ counsel. Defendant "Thomson further provided that while he was new to the Commission (in his thd month), he ‘would get the answers The Bates wanted, and respond timely. 145:Through counsel, The Bates provided correspondence regarding the exact concerns ‘expressed atthe meeting. 146.0n or about March 20, 2020, Defendant Thomson provided that he would need more time to investigate Plaintiffs’ cancers and allegations. 147.0n or about April 2, 2020, having received no further correspondence, The Bates again reached out to Defendants” for answers tothe multiple inquiries regarding the Torrenee-Lytle School 148,After multiple inguities, a response was provided to the Bates inquiry, on or about March 2001 149.With multiple misrepresentations and no effort by Defendants’ to work with local ‘community members, of The Bates, Tortance-Lytle continues to be ignored by the Commission, isin serious disrepair, and The Bates continue to be denied the opportunity to purchase and restore 150,At the time of fling, The Bates repeated inquiries have been largely ignored, and earnest ‘monies have been taken in bad faith, and never returned. EIRST CAUSE OF ACTION DISCRIMINATORY REAL ESTATE PRACTICES. 151.Plaintifs' hereby repeal and re-llege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-149 of this Complaint, ad incorporate them by reference as though fully set forth herein, 152.Pursuant to N.CG.S, {414-4 it is unlawful for any person in a rea estate transaction to discriminate, in pat, based upon race, as to the terms and conditions of the transaction. 153,0ver the twelve (12) year period in which Defendant HLC has been in possession of the Property, several potentalinterested buyers have upproached Defendants regarding purchasing the Property. All buyers, except for Plainlffs are white, and have no ties to the community, Buyers exxressed no interest in knowing or honoring the significance of the Property, nor in resting the property in @ manner that would maintain its historic mifieance and value, 154,Upon information and belief, all tbe buyers expressed an interest in the Property, for the purpose of transforming and demolishing, to establish restaurants and upseale apartment and condominium style howsing, Page 18 of 22185.Defendant Morill entertained proposals from each potential buyer with a Contract to Purchase that did not require significant down payments, architectural plans, extensive Financial statements, of statements of occupancy, The process to purchase was made clear {0 potential buyers who xere White, along with a set price for purchase. Furthermore, ‘community members were never engaged throughout their “due diligence” process, nor were ‘community members informed of persons interested in buying the Property. 156,When ‘The Bates expressed an interest in purchasing the Property, for the benefit of restoration and use as i; was originally intended, Defendants’ required Plaintiffs to submit multiple proposals, extensive financial statements, architectural plans, and often times smoified the terms of th conttact o reflect an inerease in the cost 157:The Bates were offered @ purchase price of the Property ranging ftom one hundred forty- seven thousand dollars to four hundred twenty-four thousand dollars ($147,000-8424,000), versus offers of two hundred eighty-five thousand dollars ($285,000.00), to Jolly Dale, an interested white buyer, with no tes to the community, and no direct plans for the Property 158, When negotiating the terms of sale for Brack Ventures or Jolly Dale, bath of which ae white ‘owned companies and whit individuals, extensive documentation was not requested 159.The process of requesting and supplying additional documentation, was long and drawn out, sometimes covering six (6) to seven (7) months. Each additional submission by The Bates, was met with a request for additional documentation, 160.Teems ofthe Sales Con-act did not fluctute as to both Brock Ventures and Jolly Dale. Each ‘was provided a direct est with no substantive or material changes. Additionally, they were ‘only required to submit a proposal to Defendants. Never once were they required to provide such extensive detail and documentation, asthe Bates. 161.As a result of Defendants actions of negotiating different terms and requiring little to no ‘documentation fom white buyers versus African American buyers, Defendants have ‘engaged in unlawful housing discrimination, and are jointly and severely liable to Plaintiffs for damages in excess of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). ‘SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF DUTIES OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 162.Plaintiffs' hereby repes: and re-allege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-160 of this ‘Complaint, and incorporate them by reference as though fly set forth herein, 163.Defendants owed Plains, the duties of good faith and fair dealing in connection with the ‘offers to purchase the subject property 164.Defendants assumed duties of good faith and fair dealing, by entering into legal contact, and accepting eamest money deposits for purchase ofthe Property. Page 16.06 22165.By assuming such duties, Defendants covensnted that they would deal with lint ily and honestly. 166,Defendants' breached their duties of good faith and fair dealing, dhe te following ways: () By engaging in unfi and deceptive trade practices, and acts which affected commerce and ‘which proximately resulted in injury to Paints; (©) By terminating The Bates contacts to purchase the Property without disclosing a reason for ‘the terminated sles agresments, on multiple oecasons; and, (6) By making additional requirements to The Bates that were not presented or expected from any other proposed buyers. 167.As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ breaches of their duties of good faith and fair dealing, PlainiffS have suffered damages and are entitled to recover damages from Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars (825,000.00), THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTACT 168.Plainsis* hereby repea: and re-allege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-166 of this ‘Complain, and incorporate them by reference as though fully set forth herein. 169.1n May 2019, after expressing interest in purchasing the property, The Bates were instructed to ‘deposit five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) in earnest money, to Defendants. Allegedly, said funds were placed in eserow. However, the Bates’ chock was deposited and cashed prior tothe vote approving their contact, 170.The Bates entered a Contract to Purchase the Property on June 9, 2019. 17L.As the Bates worked to prepare to purchase the Property, Defendants advised Plsintfs that the ‘new contact would be Len Norman going forward, as Defendant Mori was set to retire. 172,Defendants subsequently requested an additional five thousand dolla ($5,000.00) deposit fom Plaintiffs, 173.When Plaintiffs inquired sto why the need for additional monies, no response was provided. ‘The Contract to Purchase was sent tothe Bates for execution, 174.15 August 2019, The Bites, inquired again as tothe reason for the addtional monies, to whieh ‘no response was provide. Page 1706 22175:Soon after, the Contract tb Purchase was terminated by Defendants, 176:The Bates continued to contact Len Norman for explanation as to what was going on, but again, ‘ho response was provided, and none has been provided to dat 177.Defendants have failed w retum Pl for sale ois eamest money, following termination of the contract 178.1n January 2020, Defendants engaged with Jolly Dale forthe purchase of the Property, and ‘within two (2) weeks, she was under contract for purchase ofthe property. 179.Defendents failed and reused to remedy the Breach of Contract, as to Plaintiffs 180,Defendanis' action, suddenly terminating the Contract to Purchase with the Bates, i a Breach of Contract. Plaintiffs have suffered damages and are entitled to recover damages from Defendants, joinily and severally, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT IN CARE OF HISTORIC PROPERTY 181 Plaintifs' hereby repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-179 of this, ‘Complaint and incorporate them by reference as though fully set forth herein. 182;The Charlotte-Mecklenturg Historie Landmarks Commission has a duty, sn part, to restore, ‘preserve and operate historic / landmark properties within its jurisdiction, 183.NC lnw requires the Churlote-Mecklenburg Historie Landmarks Commission, to maintain histori landmarks, 184,Defendants" aequired Tre Torrence-Lytle School in 2009, via a transfer from Mecklenburg Counay. 185.Pursuunt to the previously mentioned statutes, Defendants® have a duty to stabilize the property. 186,Defendants" reprosente¢ to the Charlotte Planning Commission, that the primary purpose of Defendants’ acquiring te Property, was to stabilize, prevent deteriaration, and preserve its rich history 187.From the time of acquisition to the present, Defendants’ have focused most ofits efforts on securing a buyer that would be interested in creating an adaptive re-use for the property, and indoing so, absorb the esponsibility and costo stabilize the property. Page 18 of 22188.Defendants’ ignored the recommendations of hired consultants, who advised of specific work required to stabilize the Property, and instead performed very minimal work on the Property; leaving itt further deteriorate. 189,Defendants’ in many iastances, voted for the expenditure of funds to cover the cost of ‘environmental cleanup of the Property; only to delay seid cleanup for several years, asthe search continued for a bayer willing to purchase the Property in ts current condition, Delays allowed for ongoing damage and negleet to the Property, placing the community at risk for exposure to the environniental damages and effects of the property 190.As a result, Defendant” are negligent in its duty to stabilize and maintain the Historie Property, and eaused further deterioration. Plaintiffs have suffered damages and are entitled to recover damages from Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). LETH CAUSE OF ACTION, UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES I9LPlainif hereby repeat and ve-allege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-189 of this ‘Complain, and incorporate them by reference as though fully set forth herein. 192.Defendants’ are authorized to sll historic property within its jurisdiction, 193.Section 14 of the Chatlotte-Mecklenburg Historie Landmarks Commission Policy. mana, provides specific direction on how to engage the sale of property. 194-Te Poliy identifies the partes to the sale an their specific oles; along with the process. 195 Specialy, th Conta: Director i responsible for eonslting with he Chie ofthe HILC, and Cait of the Projets Cemmitee, in determining the need fora meeting between buyers and Defendants, as well as addressing inquires of interest to purchase, and inviting interested partes to submit bids. 196:The Projects Committe is responsible for deciding on recommending the offer be presented t0 the Defendant HLC's Boxed 197,Defendant Morill served as the Contract Director for Defendant HLC from its inception, until December 2019. 198.PlainiffS expressed an interest in writing, regarding their desire to purchase the subject Property, in 2016, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022. 199,Defendant Morrill met with Plains und requested a proposed plan, to be provided to the Commission. 200.Plaintffs provided Deferlants with their proposed plan. Page 19 0f 22201.Defendant Momill adviso the Bates that he wanted assurance of their financial capacity to ‘accomplish their “Taudatary goal.” 202,The Bates attended the March 14, 2016 Commission meeting to present thee proposal. During the meeting, Defendant Morill advised the Bates that the Commission would need a vote to approve consideration of their proposal, but also Mecklenburg County Facilities and Asset “Management would be required to approve consideration, 203.Defendant Morill requested 4 meeting with the Bates on April 4, 2016, whereby he requested ‘The Bates submit several additional financial statements, to include: personal financial statements, architectural ans, a new proposal, and a host of ther dacuments. 204-The Bates subsequently complied, but Defendants’ continued to request adltional financial documents, 205.The Bates inguired as te why the need for so many of the financial documents, and a second proposal, Their inquiry vas ignored, 206.Plaintffs continuously provided the documents upon request; despite not understanding why ‘the documents were being requested; especially dhe request for a second proposal 207.Requests continued well into 2019, with each instance resulting in Plaintifs working to secure ‘a contract to purchase the Property. 208.Thete had been several terested buyers prior othe Bates who had not endured such a process. 209,Uipon information and belief, Defendants’ solicited a buyer and offered a sales price of one dolla ($1.00), wile Plainiffs were under contract. 210.The inconsistent application process to purchase the Property, which Defendants’ required of the Bates including ignoring inquiries for clarity on requests, i willl, unfair and deceptive. 211 Plaintiffs have suffered damages and are entitled to recover from Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), ‘SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION ‘CONVERSION 212.Plaintfls’ hereby repeat and se-allege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-210 of this Complaint, and incorporate them by reference as though fully set forth herein, 213.Defendants’ have converted for ther own use and benefit, funds provided by The Bats, inthe mount of ten thousand éollars ($10,000.00), which isthe rightful property of Paints. Page 20 of 22214.Plaintffs demand judgment against Defendants the sum of ten thousand dollars (10,000.00), plus interest and costs as allowable by NC State law. ‘SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNJUST ENRICHMENT 215,Plaintfi’ hereby repeat and ce-allege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-213 of this ‘Complain, and incorporte them by reference as though fully set forth herein 216Defendants’ were unjusily enriched by terminating consecutive contracts for purchase of the ‘Torrence-Lyle Schoo, an fuiling to return earnest money deposits to The Bates 217-Defendans’ ae liable for the retum of such monies, and other improper fees and charges imposed upon Plait 218.Plantifs’ are entitled to money damages ftom Defendants’ on aevount of Defendants’ unjust ‘earichment throug its uaserupulous practices in business dealings, with The Bates. 219.Plaintfs have been damaged in an amount in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), and Defendants’ are both jointly and severally liable ‘NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION PUNITIVE DAMAGES, ‘220,Plaintffs’ hereby repeat and re-allege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-218 of this Complaint, and incorporate them by reference as though flly set forth herein, 221,Defendans" conduct was wilfl or wanton, ecKless, oppressive, consciously indifferent and in Aisregard to the rights of Pain 222.As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants misconduct, Defendants are liable and ‘responsible to Plaintiffs for punitive damages a outlined in detail above. WHEREFORE, Plantfs pray that this Honorable Court grant the following relief L. Judgment against Defendants’, jointly and severally, of all damages, including but not limited to compensatory, incidental, and consequential damages in an amount exceeding, ‘wventy five thousand dollars ($25,000) 2. All damages recoverable understate law. 3. Punitive damages as allowed pursuant to N.C.G.S.§ 1D-I et. Seq. Page 21 oF 24, Treble damages for the we of unfair and deceptive trade practices, 5. ‘That this Court enter ar Order requiring Defendants to perform under the June 6, 2019 Contract; o in the alternative, 6, Grant the property to Paints for the nominal amount of one dollar ($1.00), and deed ‘immediately. 7. Return to Plaintfis" the sum often thousand dollars ($10,000.00), plus interest as allowable under NC law, the earnest monies collected in ba faith. 8, That this Court enter an Order requiring Defendants’ to stbilize the Property atthe expense of Defendants’, so as o prevent further deterioration; 9, That this Court old a til by jury; 10, That the costs of this action be taxed against the Defendants; 11, That the Court award Plaintiffs reasonable attorney's fees; 12, For any such other and further relief with which Plaintiffs may be entitled, that the Court deems jut and proper Respect submited this DY day of March 2022 Fah R Fox, Es ‘The Coclran Fitm Charlotte PLLC P.O, Box 30161 Charlotte, NC 28230 (704) 762-1588 Office (704) 980-7548 Fox i email ‘Aworney for Plaintiffs NC State Bar #49729 Page 22 0f 22